Search form

Featured Topics

Protecting rights and facilitating stable relationships among federal agencies, labor organizations, and employees while advancing an effective and efficient government through the administration of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of
Arbitrator Louis Aronin filed by the Agency (GPO) under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425
of the Authority's Regulations. The Union filed an opposition to the Agency's
exceptions.

The Arbitrator found that 5 U.S.C. § 6101(a)(3)(E) applies to
employees of the GPO.(1) For the following reasons, we conclude that the Arbitrator's
award is deficient and we set aside the award.

II. Arbitrator's Award

The Union represents a unit of engineers who work various shifts and
workweeks, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in GPO's Power Branch. The Agency has
a practice of adjusting these employees' workweeks in order to have an adequate
number of employees at work, both before and after a holiday, without resorting
to overtime. This case arose when the Agency changed an employee's days off to
avoid payment of overtime for work on a holiday. The Union, relying on 5 U.S.C.
§ 6101(a)(3)(E), filed a grievance asserting that the Agency had no
right to change the employee's basic workweek because of staffing needs related
to a holiday. The Agency argued that it was not covered by section
6101(a)(3)(E).

The parties agreed that the only issue before the Arbitrator was:

[W]hether 5 U.S.C. § 6101(a)(3)(E) was applicable to the GPO
. . . or whether the failure to list the employees of the GPO in
5 U.S.C. § 5441 (2) meant that the [GPO] was not covered by that provision.

Award at 4.

The Arbitrator stated that section 6101(a)(1) "'does not include an
employee or individual excluded from the definition of employee in
section 5541(2).'" Id. (emphasis added by the Arbitrator, quoting
section 6101). The Arbitrator reviewed the exclusions listed in section 5541(2)
and found that none of them referred to GPO employees. The Arbitrator then
stated that "[t]he key to a determination of the status of the employees of the
[GPO] is not alone in the absence of their exclusion in 5 U.S.C. 5541(2),
but a reference to 5 U.S.C. 5349, which is listed as an included group
in [section] 6101(a)(1) . . . .'" Id. at 5-6
(emphasis in original). The Arbitrator found that "the employees of the [GPO],
who are covered by section 5349[,] are thereby also covered by 5 U.S.C.
6101." Id. at 6. The Arbitrator stated that "[b]ased on the fact that
the [GPO] employees are not only not excluded specifically by
5 U.S.C. 5541(2), but are also covered by 5 U.S.C. 5349, they are
therefore covered by 5 U.S.C. 6101." Id. at 6-7 (emphasis in
original). Consequently, the Arbitrator found that section 6101(a)(3)(E) "is
applicable to employees of the [GPO]." Id. at 7.

As his award, the Arbitrator stated: "The provisions of title 5,
section 6101(a)(3)(E), relating to hours of work, is [sic] applicable to
employees of the [GPO]."(3)Id.

III. Exceptions

A. Agency's Contentions

The Agency asserts that the award is deficient as contrary to law. In
this regard, the Agency contends that the Arbitrator's determination that the
Agency is covered by section 6101 is based on his incorrect finding that
the employees are governed by section 5349. According to the Agency, the
employees are not governed by section 5349 but, instead, are covered by
44 U.S.C. § 305 (also referred to as the Kiess Act). Additionally,
the Agency claims that the employees are not included under 5 U.S.C.
§ 5343. In sum, the Agency argues:

The Arbitrator chose to look into [s]ection 5349 after having
concluded that the Agency was not covered within the meaning of [s]ection 5541,
the section to which both the Agency and the Union referred him in seeking to
resolve the issue. . . . Since, by the Arbitrator's own analysis, the Agency is
not covered by [s]ection 5541 and because the Agency's employees do not come
within the meaning of [s]ection 5349 or [s]ection 5343,
. . . the Arbitrator's decision should be reversed as a matter
of law . . . .

Exceptions at 10.

B. Union's Opposition

According to the Union, GPO employees are covered by section 6101(a)(1)
since they are not in the extensive list of exclusions in 5 U.S.C. 5541. The
Union states that "[b]oth the Union and the Agency referred the Arbitrator to
section 5541 in seeking to resolve this matter." Opposition at 7. It
acknowledges that the Arbitrator erred "in his assumption" that the affected
employees are covered by sections 5349 and 5343. Id. at 4. However,
the Union claims that the Arbitrator referred to sections 5343 and 5349 "only .
. . to show more justification of the GPO's coverage, even though it is not
necessary." Id. The Union also claims that the Comptroller General, the
GPO, and the Authority "have cited sections 6101 and or 5546 as governing law
in numerous cases involving the GPO." Id. at 6.

Section 6101(a)(3) applies only to "an Executive agency, a military
department, or . . . the government of the District of Columbia . . . ." The
GPO is not an Executive agency, a military department, or a part of the
government of the District of Columbia; it is a legislative agency. Lewis v.
Sawyer, 698 F.2d 1261, 1262 (D.C. Cir. 1983). By its terms, therefore,
section 6101(a)(3), including subsection (E), does not apply to the GPO.(4) Since section 6101(a)(3)(E) does
not apply to the GPO, it is irrelevant whether the employees in this case come
within the definition of "employee" under section 6101(a)(1), as found by the
Arbitrator.

In this connection, as the Authority stated in National Air Traffic
Controllers Association, MEBA, AFL-CIO and U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, 51 FLRA 204, 207 (1995), the task of
resolving a dispute over the meaning of a statutory provision "begins where all
such inquiries must begin: with the language of the statute itself." United
States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 (1989)
(citation omitted). If the statute's language is plain, that is, if Congress'
intent is apparent from the language, "it is also where the inquiry should end,
for where . . . the statute's language is plain, the 'sole function
of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.'" Id. (quoting
Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485 (1917)). SeealsoOverseas Education Association v. FLRA, 876 F.2d 960, 974
(D.C. Cir. 1989) ("[u]nless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise,
'[w]hen we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is
complete.'" (quoting Burlington Northern R.R. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax
Commission, 481 U.S. 454, 461 (1987)).

Based on the plain wording of section 6101(a)(3), we find that
that section, including subsection (E), does not apply to the GPO. Accordingly,
the Arbitrator's award finding that 5 U.S.C. § 6101(a)(3)(E) applies
to the GPO employees in this case is contrary to law.

V. Decision

The award is set aside.

Appendix

5 U.S.C. § 6101 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

§ 6101. Basic 40-hour workweek; work schedules;
regulations

(a)(1) For the purpose of this subsection, "employee" includes an
employee of the government of the District of Columbia and an employee whose
pay is fixed and adjusted from time to time under section 5343 or 5349 of this
title, or by a wage board or similar administrative authority serving the same
purpose, but does not include an employee or individual excluded from the
definition of employee in section 5541(2) of this title, except as specifically
provided under this paragraph.

. . . .

(5) The Architect of the Capitol may apply this subsection to
employees under the Office of the Architect of the Capitol or the Botanic
Garden. The Librarian of Congress may apply this subsection to employees under
the Library of Congress.

(3) Except when the head of an Executive agency, a military
department, or of the government of the District of Columbia determines that
his organization would be seriously handicapped in carrying out its functions
or that costs would be substantially increased, he shall provide, with respect
to each employee in his organization, that --

. . .

(E) the occurrence of holidays may not affect the designation of the
basic workweek[.]

Other pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 6101(a) are set forth in
the Appendix to this decision.

2. The parties agree that the
Arbitrator's reference to 5 U.S.C. § 5441 is inadvertent and should
be a reference to 5 U.S.C. § 5541.

3. The Arbitrator's award states that
section 6101(a)(3) is applicable "to employees of the Government Printing
Office." Award at 7. Inasmuch as the only GPO employees involved in this case
are the engineers in the unit, we construe his award as applying only to those
employees, not to other GPO employees.

4. Additional support for this
conclusion is found in section 6101(a)(5). That section specifically
authorizes the Architect of the Capitol to apply section 6101(a) to employees
under the Office of the Architect of the Capitol or the Botanic Garden, and the
Librarian of Congress to apply it to employees under the Library of Congress,
but does not mention the GPO.